陈法官指出，仲裁作为替代性纠纷解决机制，灵活性与非形式化是其核心优势，但灵活性绝不等于随意性。尽管仲裁程序无需遵循诉讼程序那般严格的形式要求，但其仍需维持最低限度的严肃性与规范性。若当事人已在仲裁协议中明确约定，可于非正式场合（如户外、餐会等）进行仲裁，则应尊重其约定；但若未作此类特殊约定，仲裁程序即应符合社会公众对 “听审” 活动的普遍合理期待。

她强调，仲裁制度的公信力不仅源于裁决结果的公正性，更依赖于程序过程的严谨性、公平性与规范性。若仲裁程序流于形式，甚至使人对仲裁员是否履行了认真听审职责产生合理怀疑，即便裁决结果本身并无实体瑕疵，也将严重损害仲裁制度的公信力根基。

在首个案例中，申请人以首席仲裁员在庭审期间多次出现短暂瞌睡（每次持续 10 至 15 分钟），且对其代理律师存在态度冷漠、带有敌意的行为为由，向法院申请撤销部分仲裁裁决。针对此情形，法院需判断上述事实是否已达到法定的撤裁标准。陈法官在相关裁判中指出，尽管仲裁员在庭审中可能存在注意力短暂分散的客观情况，但根据《香港仲裁条例》第 34 条之规定，撤销仲裁裁决的法定要件为存在 “严重的程序不公正或偏见”，该标准设置了严格的适用门槛。

陈法官就此展开分析：

1.上述短时 “失神” 均发生于非核心陈述阶段；（The reason for my conclusion is that firstly, the sleeping episodes took place at a time when the G Parties’ counsel was making submissions on the breakdown and components of the G Parties’ costs being sought, which was a part of their submissions on their claim for interim costs as security. This does not appear to be a critical or complex part of the case or of the hearing which the Tribunal or the PA would not be able to understand. As the Panel put it, and I would agree, the sleeping incidents on 25 June 2024 do not give rise to “any meaningful period of lack of attention by the PA” which would lead an objective observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that the PA was biased.）

2.庭审现场其余仲裁员、代理律师及当事人均未即时提出异议；（Secondly, as pointed out above, CNG’s team of lawyers present at the hearing did not raise immediate objection to the PA’s sleeping, and this suggests that they did not regard the PA’s inattention at the stage of the hearing to have any material impact on the possible outcome of the application. Even the instances referred to in CNG’s Reply filed for the Challenge, on which CNG sought to rely as examples of CNG’s lawyers having made complaint before 25 June 2024, did not include or refer to the PA’s sleeping episodes.）

3.仲裁员具备丰富的仲裁经验，由双方分别提名的仲裁员共同指定，法院认为合理客观且知情的观察者在评估其是否存在明显偏见时会考量这一点；（Thirdly, the PA is experienced in arbitration and had been designated jointly by the arbitrators who had been respectively nominated by the G Parties and CNG on the basis of his experience and training in adjudication. The fair-minded and objective observer would give relevant consideration to this when assessing whether there is apparent bias on the part of the PA and whether he would be able to apply an impartial mind in coming to an eventual award fairly and independently of either parties, in accordance with the statutory duties imposed on him as an arbitrator, notwithstanding any earlier remarks or conduct which may have some effect in casting aspersions on his ability to give full attention to the parties’ costs submissions. I accept that it can only be assumed that a professional judge or arbitrator would by training and experience practise impartiality.）

基于此，她驳回申请人的撤裁请求，并指出：仲裁员在人类认知合理范围内偶发注意力分散、身心疲惫，并非不可接受，关键在于裁决结果未因此出现失衡。（The fact that the PA was asleep cannot by itself mean that he was partial, and had shut his mind to CNG’s case. It could mean that the PA was simply tired, or was lax, or even indolent. On the particular facts of the case and according to the time when the sleeping occurred, if it should be perceived as the PA’s lack of interest in the case presented, then it could just as easily be perceived as his lack of interest in the G Parties’ case rather than CNG’s.）

另一案例的裁判结果则截然相反。在 Song Lihua v Lee Chee Hon 一案中，陈法官面对的情形已广为人知：仲裁员未通过固定设备参与庭审，而是以手机远程接入，且过程中画面显示其所处场景持续变化，时而室内踱步，时而乘车移动，甚至出现于公共场合。更值得关注的是，该仲裁员在律师陈述期间多次出现无应答或信号延迟现象，无法确认其是否完整聆听全部内容。申请人据此主张仲裁程序存在瑕疵，损害其陈述权利及对仲裁庭公正性的信赖。

陈法官认为，此种 “移动听审” 模式，虽形式上实现 “会议接入”，但实质上违背了仲裁员应恪尽职守、认真履职的基本要求。她裁定该裁决不予在香港获得承认，并强调：即便仲裁程序无需遵循法院审判的严格形式，仍需具备使当事人感受到被尊重、被认真对待的基本程序形态。

通过两起反差显著的案例，陈法官明确香港法院对仲裁程序的干预原则：并非要求仲裁程序达到法院审判的严苛标准，而是需在合理公正感知范围内开展程序操作。

其余情形还包括仲裁庭超权限处理未获授权的事项；例如仲裁员存在明确且对结果产生影响的偏颇倾向；此外，程序本身严重偏离对公正听审的合理期待，亦属此类。除上述情形外，即便仲裁员存在轻微倦意，或部分程序安排出现技术层面的不畅，只要未对整体程序公正性造成实际损害，法院均会尊重仲裁裁决的终局效力。

陈法官特别强调，若当事人在听审过程中发现任何程序问题，诸如仲裁员注意力分散、信号连接中断、陈述过程被打断等，应于听审进行中即时提出异议。若当场未提出异议，事后再以程序不公为由主张权利，法院将对其主张的合理性持高度质疑态度。

陈法官引用一则法谚：“If you shoot at the king, make sure you don’t miss.” 其指出，若要对仲裁庭或仲裁裁决提出质疑，必须具备明确的主张指向、充分的证据支撑及符合法定要求的程序，否则不仅难以达成诉求目标，还可能让人形成 “无法遵守仲裁规则” 的负面认知。

仲裁程序可体现灵活性，但不得突破规范边界；可对倦意情形予以包容，但不得放任懈怠行为。仲裁员可存在生理疲劳，但必须保持履职专注；甚至在符合合理限度的前提下出现短暂注意力游离亦属可接受范围，但绝不能处于实质上的履职缺席状态。

陈美兰法官的观点对仲裁实务具有极强的指导意义，特别是在律师处理程序瑕疵、申请撤裁或抗辩执行阶段时，提供了明确的判断框架和策略方向。首先，从撤裁案件策略来看，陈法官强调的“严重程序不公正或偏见”标准意味着律师在评估案件时，必须重点审查瑕疵是否对程序的实质公正性造成影响，而非仅停留在形式瑕疵层面。换言之，若仲裁员的行为虽不规范，但未影响案件事实认定、当事人陈述权或裁决逻辑完整性，贸然提出撤裁申请不仅难以成立，反而可能被法院认为滥用程序，损害当事人的诉讼形象与仲裁信誉。

其次，从案件管理角度出发，该两起案例为律师在参与仲裁时如何应对程序异常提供了实际操作指引。律师在听审中若发现仲裁员注意力分散、技术障碍或其他可能影响程序公正的情形，应立即于听审现场或书面程序中提出正式异议，并留存会议记录或通信证据。这不仅是维护当事人陈述权的必要措施，更是后续司法审查时证明程序瑕疵“即时被关注”的关键证据。若事后才提出程序不公主张，将面临极高的举证难度与可信度质疑。陈法官明确提出的“即时异议义务”，事实上对律师的程序敏感度与案件控制能力提出了更高要求。

再次，从仲裁员管理与机构责任角度，陈法官的论述也提醒仲裁机构应建立更完善的听审行为规范与技术保障机制。例如，在远程仲裁中，机构可要求仲裁员使用固定设备、确保画面稳定并限制环境干扰，以维持听审庄重性与记录完整性。律师在案件筹备阶段可提前要求在程序令中加入相应条款，以防仲裁员出现“移动听审”或非正式参与的风险。

最后，从跨境执行角度看，这两起判例进一步巩固了香港作为国际仲裁司法支持与审查中心的信誉。律师在香港申请执行境外仲裁裁决时，可援引陈法官的逻辑框架，主张法院仅在程序失衡达到实质性影响时才可拒绝执行，从而提高执行成功率。反之，当律师代表被执行方抗辩时，则应重点搜集能够反映“程序不尊重或严重偏离听审合理期待”的事实证据。

案例来源：香港国际仲裁中心HKIAC

判决原文：https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/loadPdf.jsp?url=https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/2024/HCCT000060A_2024.doc&mobile=N

涉商事纠纷相关业务咨询请点击阅读原文，直达环仲官网，或电话咨询：18616775507，邮箱咨询：judy.yuan@linkarb.com.cn

本微信公众号所发布的资讯或文章仅为交流讨论目的，不代表上海环仲律师事务所出具的任何法律意见。任何依据本文的全部或部分内容而作出的判断或决定（无论作为或不作为）以及因此造成的法律后果，上海环仲律师事务所不承担任何责任。如果您需要相关法律意见或法律服务，欢迎与上海环仲律师事务所相关律师联系。